In Depth

The U.S. Supreme Court Monday affirmed in part and reversed in part Arizona’s controversial immigration law. The justices
also found that a life sentence without possibility of parole for juveniles violates the Eighth Amendment.

In Arizona,
et al. v. United States, 11-182, Justice Anthony Kennedy delivered the opinion for the court. Only four provisions
of the law were at issue. The majority found sections 3, 5(C) and 6 of Arizona Senate Bill 1070 are pre-empted by federal
law.

Section 3, which makes failure to comply with federal alien registration requirements a state misdemeanor, “intrudes
on the field of alien registration, a field in which Congress has left no room for States to regulate,” the opinion
states. The criminal penalty in Section 5(C), a section that makes it a misdemeanor for an unauthorized alien to seek or engage
in work in the state, “stands as an obstacle to the federal regulatory system.” Section 6, which authorizes officers
to arrest without a warrant someone “the officer has probable cause to believe … has committed any public offense
that makes the person removable” from the U.S. also creates an obstacle to federal law by authorizing state and local
officers to make warrantless arrests of certain aliens suspected of being removable.

The justices also decided it was improper to enjoin Section 2(B) before the state courts had an opportunity to construe it
and without showing that the section’s enforcement actually conflicts with federal immigration law and its objectives.
Section 2(B) requires officers conducting a stop, detention or arrest to make efforts in some circumstances to verify the
person’s immigration status with the federal government.

In a 5-4 decision, the justices ruled that the Eighth Amendment forbids a sentencing scheme that mandates life in prison
without the possibility of parole for juveniles convicted of homicides.

The decision comes in Miller
v. Alabama, 10-9646, in which juvenile Miller and his friend beat Miller’s neighbor and set fire to his trailer
after doing drugs and drinking. The neighbor died. Miller was in adult court on a charge of murder in the course of arson.
He was found guilty and the trial court imposed a statutorily mandated life without parole. The Alabama appeals court affirmed.
The companion case to Miller is Jackson v. Hobbs, director Arkansas Dept. of Correction, 10-9647, in which
Jackson, who was 14, received a mandatory term of life in prison without possibility of parole after being convicted of murder.

The majority cited caselaw that established children are constitutionally different from adults for sentencing purposes and
those rulings show the flaws of imposing mandatory life sentences without the possibility of parole on juvenile homicide offenders.

Kagan delivered the court’s opinion and was joined by Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer and Sotomayor. Bryer and Sotomayor
also concurred in a separate opinion. Roberts dissented and was joined by Scalia, Thomas and Alito. Thomas and Alito also
wrote dissenting opinions.

The justices found that Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. ___ (2010), applies to the Montana
law. Citizens United struck down a similar federal law, holding that political speech does not lose First Amendment
protection just because it’s source is a corporation.

Breyer, Ginsburg, Sotomayor and Kagan dissented. They said they would vote to grant the petition for certiorari in order
to reconsider Citizens United, or at least, its application in this case. Instead they voted to deny it because they
did not believe Citizens United would be reconsidered by the court.

The much anticipated health care rulings will likely come Thursday, as the court announced it will sit again this week.

ADVERTISEMENT

Conversations

1 Comments

The Miller case did not rule that life imprisonment without parole is unconstitutional. Rather it held that such statutes
are unconstitutional only when they make LWOP mandatory without allowing the sentencer to consider facts such as the defendant's
age.

Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or
hateful.

You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.

Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content
are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.

No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are
relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.

We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag
a post simply because you disagree with it.